You can probably afford the speeding tickets then.
That was the original point, right? That wealthier people have the means to fight the ticket or policy, or absorb the fines. That's why the cameras are supposedly more prevalent in poorer areas. The people there have less time and resources to fight an unpopular policy.
Very few people who are going without pay actually support it to get the wall. What Trump's wall actually represents is his willingness to let hundreds of thousands of people suffer because he can't get his way.
It is illegal to drive over the speed limit. If yu break these laws you can be fined. Speed cameras are an automated method of fining people for breaking the law. If you don't want to pay the fine then don't break the law.
Simple solutions for simple minds. The speed limit on most highways is too low. Modern cars a requite capable; they handle and stop very well. The fact is, traffic flow in my area is regularly at about 80 MPH on the highway, even though the limit is 65. When ~75% of people see no problem with breaking the law, it's not the people who are wrong, it's the law.
Yeah, and about those hacks, I wonder when we are going to start seeing those hackers shot in the balls, knees and elbows, just to send a message that not everything should be hacked. I'm really surprised it hasn't happened yet.
I see you're not a fan of the Eighth Amendment. You think that's an appropriate punishment for hacking? That's some next-level authoritarian dictator shit. Thank god you're not in charge.
There used to be a time when anyone logging into a BBS was presented with a notice as required by law that nothing on the system was to be considered private and you were advised not to treat it as such. The impression I had at the time was that this was Legally enforceable. We may be able to apply those older laws to the current iteration of message boards. Should be interesting.
tl;dr;
This generation has never had a sufficient level of distrust instilled at an early age.
I was not on Facebook for many years. Why? Because I actually read the terms and conditions for joining. At the time (I haven't gone back to check recently) it said that anything you post on Facebook belongs to you, but as long as it is on the site Facebook can use it for absolutely anything whatsoever. By signing up you are giving Facebook carte blanche to do anything they please with the information you put on the site.
Like you point out, the fact that people are surprised or upset by whatever Facebook does just shows their naivete. It shows they have not read what they agreed to when they signed up. It shows they don't understand Facebook's business model. I am now on Facebook, but I never post anything or "like" anything because I am keenly aware that whenever I interact with the site I am giving them information about myself. My profile picture isn't even me. I am only on it because I missed out on a few social gatherings, because "Oh, you're not on Facebook..." So I signed up to get the invites. Even that tells Facebook something about me.
They could not sow division that is not already there. The left have gone all in on the premise that we are stronger the more dissimilar we become. Trump is going to be an ineffective speed bump in the road but eventually their philosophy will destroy them and inevitably balkanize this country. Welcome to the fall of Rome 2.0 lads, buckle up!
No two people are exactly alike. This is true even of the people you consider to be like you. Even white Christians have come into conflict with one another. The differences between people are the ones we choose to notice. These differences can be interesting or threatening, depending on one's point of view.
Facebook Doesn't Care About Fixing Conservative Views Problem On Its Platform
If you had looked into the matter at all, you would know that the Russian Internet Research Agency was posting both conservative and liberal material in order to sow discord among the American public. They were wildly successful. So successful in fact, that they started actively supporting Trump because Putin hates Hillary Clinton. But you are more concerned with being butthurt over some perceived censorship than you are with a rival nation interfering with our democratic process. Get your priorities straight.
Current and former Facebook factcheckers told the Guardian that the tech platform's collaboration with outside reporters has produced minimal results and that they've lost trust in Facebook...
I live in rural Tennessee. I hear that same lazy American shit all the time. It's their excuse that sounds good to others, to the news people, and to the politicians. Bottom line: He doesn't want to pay for Americans. Period, sorry, international market competition be damned. The market isn't his problem to solve, those rupublicunts he keeps voting for made those policies and it's not gonna be fixed by anyone but them, so it's unlikely to be fixed. There's a reason "Americans just aren't desperate enough", we stopped letting greedy cheapskates like your uncle fuck us over.
Oh look, another one who didn't absorb this part: "He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts. The Mexicans do none of that. They are reliable and work hard."
My uncle did hire Americans. The people who applied for the jobs proved unable or unwilling to show up to work on time and in a condition to do hours of physical labor. I only know what he told me, and I don't know what else to tell you.
As the other AC told you, ignoring the market conditions in which you operate your business is not a way run a successful business. My uncle cannot just say, "Fuck the market, I'm going to pay my people $30 an hour because it's the right thing to do." He runs a business, not a charity. And he would not run his business long if he ignored his revenue relative to his costs. The market is not his problem to solve, but it is his to contend with.
Where I agree is the he continues to vote for this crap. I love my uncle, but we do not agree on political matters. He voted for Trump, and I think Trump is a dangerous ignoramus. Rural America is kinda like that though; voting for Republicans. I did not write my initial post to defend Republican voting. I was just trying to illustrate that the matter is not as simple as, "Pay a decent wage and plenty of Americans will do these jobs." I used to think that too, but after talking with someone with first-hand knowledge of the subject I now see that it just isn't that straightforward.
> He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts.
Mexican culture has a long history of alcohol consumption, so I'm not sure if that one is quite accurate.
Are you saying you know more about my uncles employees than he does? I'm not sure how that could be the case. I'm just telling you what he told me when I asked.
Sounds like your uncle is a traitorous scumbag who has sold out his own countrymen to make a quick buck.
Here's a hint: Americans will gladly do ANY of these jobs. But you're going to need to pay a good wage, provide healthcare, follow OSHA safety regulations, obey labor laws, etc.
I can already hear the bleating: "but muh profits!!". Well bro, if you can't turn a profit without using slave labor I guess you must really suck as a businessman. Shitty businesses go under and get replaced by businesses that CAN make a profit while playing by the rules.
It seems like you missed this part: "I asked him why he doesn't hire Americans. He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts. The Mexicans do none of that. They are reliable and work hard."
It also seems like you missed this part: "And wages are constricted because my uncle has to sell on the open market. So his prices and therefore costs have to remain competitive."
The commodities markets are world wide. My uncle has to compete with farmers in other parts of the world where labor is much cheaper. His selling prices are constrained by that. And he is playing by the rules. His Mexicans come here legally. I don't know if he provides health care (though he does pay their room and board while they are here) but he does comply with OSHA and other labor laws. This is all legal, bro! No slave labor involved. The fact is, Americans largely don't want to do these jobs. Why would my uncle go to the trouble of getting these Mexicans if he could just hire locally?
I understand your sentiment, and I used to feel the same way. But the realities of Capitalism simply don't work that way. The world is not a just or fair place, as it is currently managed and configured. That pisses me off too, but fighting reality is a losing battle.
Correct. For all intensive purposes Florida is a blue state from here on out, due to the large number of minorities and hence Democratic voters in the prison population.
As if it's a mystery as to why those minorities don't generally vote for Republicans. And the phrase is "for all intents and purposes".
Taking away people's right to vote and own firearms because of streaming? Wow, talk about overreach. This should get laughed right out of Washington. Problem is, there's enough money behind it that it probably won't.
Taking away people's rights after they have served their time for a felony conviction is the overreach. That's some bullshit, right there.
Seeing as the DNC is calling me a bigot and racist and greedy every time they get in front of a camera, including saying I don't deserve any tax cut, fuck them. Never voting DNC again for the rest of my life.
From McConnell's perpspetive he ain't doing too bad : he got what he wanted. Conservative judges filling all the vacanices across the country, 2 (and maybe more) ultra conservative supreme court justices and
Yep, and these are the reasons I overlooked the obvious flaws and voted for Trump, and will do so again.
THE FUCKING NEW TAX CODE (ie stealing from the poor to appease the rich).
Here, we part company. The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.
Also, the tax code is really stealing from the rich to appease the poor. When you look at how much the rich pay in taxes, it turns out that they pay MORE of the taxes than the poor do, with the top few percent paying over half of all taxes collected. So, when you consider what's *fair* I wonder how you determine what's fair? We already have a heavily progressive tax code.
My personal reading of the situation is that your ideas about taxes are based on a fundamental belief that having rich and poor people is evidence of unfairness. This is wrong headed thinking. This is looking at outcomes and not recognizing differing effort and ability and refusing to understand that being created equal doesn't imply outcomes are the same. Thus your decrying of the tax code, robbing from the poor, to pay the rich, even when the FACTS are that the rich pay far more in taxes than the poor because we have a progressive tax system already.
You are misinformed.
Tax revenue has been growing for decades, regardless of tax policy. But it is growing more slowly since the most recent tax cuts. https://www.thebalance.com/cur.... Supply-side economics has been debunked for years. It does not work. the only reason the idea lives on is that it serves as a propaganda item for the ultra rich.
The rich pay more in taxes because they benefit more from society's infrastructure. I'm sure you agree that people should pay their fair share.
Finally, you talk about outcomes when people don't start out in the same spot. Being born rich is a massive advantage, in many ways. The outcome can easily have nothing to do with effort or ability. You might have a point if everyone were born into the same circumstances. But that is not the case.
I dunno man, importing foreigners for labour seems to be more of a democrat thing. They love to talk about how we can bring in foreigners to "do jobs Americans won't do".
Importing foreign labor is a business thing. Business want to minimize their payroll costs. You, with your high standard of living and resistance to exploitation, are not what they are looking for.
My uncle, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, owns a farm in Pennsylvania which covers about 1000 acres. He has Mexicans come up on temporary work visas to work his farm. I asked him why he doesn't hire Americans. He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts. The Mexicans do none of that. They are reliable and work hard.
Americans really don't want to do these jobs. At least not for the pay. And wages are constricted because my uncle has to sell on the open market. So his prices and therefore costs have to remain competitive. Americans just aren't desperate enough. That's not a bad thing, but it does mean they won't wake up at 4:30 in the morning to do hard work. They'd rather leave that to the Mexicans.
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
Um, what? That government was abolished in 1865. Yes, the US government still exists. But it is not the government it was 150 years ago. How could it be?
>> Corporations should exist to serve the public through the goods and services they can provide, making a profit in the process. If they exist solely to make a profit, or generate value for their shareholders, then they really serve no purpose.
This reminds me of Geroge Carlin's "Stuff" skit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
One could just as easily argue that for the majority of cases making "goods and services" serve no purpose either. "Serve the public" means a lot of different things to different people.
George Carlin was a genius. I certainly agree that our society's needs are overfilled in the aggregate.
You sound like a socialist. Companies exist to make good and services someone else is willing to pay for and the bi-product is profit. They are not there for the good of the community.
How is that not exactly what I said? A community is just a group of people who interact with each other. They are being served by corporations. No socialism necessary. I do however think socialism is appropriate in certain circumstances, where the private sector cannot make a profit providing a necessary service, or where centralized control is needed. Fire brigades come to mind.
you are one triggered snowflake. Why can't trumptards be consistent for a split second? hillary can burn in hell for all I care, but to be outraged about her usage of a private e-mail server, and then to immediately downplay ivanka's? you're making my job too easy; i don't have to do any work at all to point out your hypocrisy. it's always feels > reals from your corner though. the trumps don't give a flying fuck about keeping classified info safe. don't forget that trump is using an unsecured phone that is almost certainly being listened to https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1... . fuck off with that kys bullshit, you're a degenerate coward.
Let's not forget that Trump literally gave classified information directly to the Russians.
Employers are not there to coddle employees or provide mental health services to them. It is not a charity and it is most certainly not a hospital or some type of support system. Employers are there to earn a profit on someone's investment, and that is their sole and only function. If you need a support animal to function or constant ego stroking to feel important, consider that perhaps you belong in academia not the private sector.
Honestly, the idea that corporations exist solely to make a profit is part of what leads to this psychopathy. Corporations should exist to serve the public through the goods and services they can provide, making a profit in the process. If they exist solely to make a profit, or generate value for their shareholders, then they really serve no purpose.
Overt racism? Source please of where 'the right' is overtly racist. Sure, racists exist but there aren't that many of them.
Now, what the left CALLS racism is very different from actual racism.
Point out verifiable facts that are inconvenient to some minority group and you're racist according to the left. Decide you don't want unfettered illegal immigration because it strains our resources, increases crime, and dare to point out that most illegal immigrants have few marketable skills and use welfare at a much higher rate than citizens or legal immigrants (all facts, not opinions) and you're guilty of spreading racist hate speech according to the left.
Basically with the left, criticizing or even pointing out anything somebody non-white does is racist, even when not accompanied by any mention of race or opinion about race. Criticizing something someone DOES or the way someone BEHAVES is not racism--racism is criticizing someone for a characteristic they have no control over.
Learn the difference. Then teach it to Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. because they sure as hell don't know what it is.
Do you really not know that neo-Nazis identify with the political right?
The MSM is an agent of that left. At least in America, they view themselves as an unofficial 4th branch of government. They're not, and the can fuck off and do their job, unbiased. Not just just in what they report, but also in what they hold back and don't (omit).
The MSM, an agent of the left? The anti-corporate left? The pro-socialism left? The left that wants to reduce the influence of money in politics?
You think the MSM, owned and controlled by large corporations, is an agent of the people who rail against large corporations? Get your head out of your ass. The MSM is an agent of profit and the status-quo. They are risk-averse, and so will shun anything that threatens their revenue streams. That includes the far-left and the far-right. The far-right is just the threat du jour, with all the overt racism and aggression. The right is scaring away the ad revenue. That's why they are being silenced by the MSM; not because of some left-leaning attitudes. on the part of media owners.
Slashdot Mirror
You can probably afford the speeding tickets then.
That was the original point, right? That wealthier people have the means to fight the ticket or policy, or absorb the fines. That's why the cameras are supposedly more prevalent in poorer areas. The people there have less time and resources to fight an unpopular policy.
Some of them do. See: the Trump's Wall.
Very few people who are going without pay actually support it to get the wall. What Trump's wall actually represents is his willingness to let hundreds of thousands of people suffer because he can't get his way.
It is illegal to drive over the speed limit. If yu break these laws you can be fined. Speed cameras are an automated method of fining people for breaking the law. If you don't want to pay the fine then don't break the law.
Simple solutions for simple minds. The speed limit on most highways is too low. Modern cars a requite capable; they handle and stop very well. The fact is, traffic flow in my area is regularly at about 80 MPH on the highway, even though the limit is 65. When ~75% of people see no problem with breaking the law, it's not the people who are wrong, it's the law.
Yeah, and about those hacks, I wonder when we are going to start seeing those hackers shot in the balls, knees and elbows, just to send a message that not everything should be hacked. I'm really surprised it hasn't happened yet.
I see you're not a fan of the Eighth Amendment. You think that's an appropriate punishment for hacking? That's some next-level authoritarian dictator shit. Thank god you're not in charge.
There used to be a time when anyone logging into a BBS was presented with a notice as required by law that nothing on the system was to be considered private and you were advised not to treat it as such. The impression I had at the time was that this was Legally enforceable. We may be able to apply those older laws to the current iteration of message boards. Should be interesting.
tl;dr; This generation has never had a sufficient level of distrust instilled at an early age.
I was not on Facebook for many years. Why? Because I actually read the terms and conditions for joining. At the time (I haven't gone back to check recently) it said that anything you post on Facebook belongs to you, but as long as it is on the site Facebook can use it for absolutely anything whatsoever. By signing up you are giving Facebook carte blanche to do anything they please with the information you put on the site.
Like you point out, the fact that people are surprised or upset by whatever Facebook does just shows their naivete. It shows they have not read what they agreed to when they signed up. It shows they don't understand Facebook's business model. I am now on Facebook, but I never post anything or "like" anything because I am keenly aware that whenever I interact with the site I am giving them information about myself. My profile picture isn't even me. I am only on it because I missed out on a few social gatherings, because "Oh, you're not on Facebook..." So I signed up to get the invites. Even that tells Facebook something about me.
They could not sow division that is not already there. The left have gone all in on the premise that we are stronger the more dissimilar we become. Trump is going to be an ineffective speed bump in the road but eventually their philosophy will destroy them and inevitably balkanize this country. Welcome to the fall of Rome 2.0 lads, buckle up!
No two people are exactly alike. This is true even of the people you consider to be like you. Even white Christians have come into conflict with one another. The differences between people are the ones we choose to notice. These differences can be interesting or threatening, depending on one's point of view.
Facebook Doesn't Care About Fixing Conservative Views Problem On Its Platform
If you had looked into the matter at all, you would know that the Russian Internet Research Agency was posting both conservative and liberal material in order to sow discord among the American public. They were wildly successful. So successful in fact, that they started actively supporting Trump because Putin hates Hillary Clinton. But you are more concerned with being butthurt over some perceived censorship than you are with a rival nation interfering with our democratic process. Get your priorities straight.
Current and former Facebook factcheckers told the Guardian that the tech platform's collaboration with outside reporters has produced minimal results and that they've lost trust in Facebook...
They had trust in Facebook?
LOL
I live in rural Tennessee. I hear that same lazy American shit all the time. It's their excuse that sounds good to others, to the news people, and to the politicians. Bottom line: He doesn't want to pay for Americans. Period, sorry, international market competition be damned. The market isn't his problem to solve, those rupublicunts he keeps voting for made those policies and it's not gonna be fixed by anyone but them, so it's unlikely to be fixed. There's a reason "Americans just aren't desperate enough", we stopped letting greedy cheapskates like your uncle fuck us over.
Oh look, another one who didn't absorb this part: "He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts. The Mexicans do none of that. They are reliable and work hard."
My uncle did hire Americans. The people who applied for the jobs proved unable or unwilling to show up to work on time and in a condition to do hours of physical labor. I only know what he told me, and I don't know what else to tell you.
As the other AC told you, ignoring the market conditions in which you operate your business is not a way run a successful business. My uncle cannot just say, "Fuck the market, I'm going to pay my people $30 an hour because it's the right thing to do." He runs a business, not a charity. And he would not run his business long if he ignored his revenue relative to his costs. The market is not his problem to solve, but it is his to contend with.
Where I agree is the he continues to vote for this crap. I love my uncle, but we do not agree on political matters. He voted for Trump, and I think Trump is a dangerous ignoramus. Rural America is kinda like that though; voting for Republicans. I did not write my initial post to defend Republican voting. I was just trying to illustrate that the matter is not as simple as, "Pay a decent wage and plenty of Americans will do these jobs." I used to think that too, but after talking with someone with first-hand knowledge of the subject I now see that it just isn't that straightforward.
> He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts.
Mexican culture has a long history of alcohol consumption, so I'm not sure if that one is quite accurate.
Are you saying you know more about my uncles employees than he does? I'm not sure how that could be the case. I'm just telling you what he told me when I asked.
illegal immigrants are modern slaves. Got it.
Yeah, they sort of are. But I am not talking about illegal immigrants. The Mexicans my uncle hires come here legally.
Sounds like your uncle is a traitorous scumbag who has sold out his own countrymen to make a quick buck.
Here's a hint: Americans will gladly do ANY of these jobs. But you're going to need to pay a good wage, provide healthcare, follow OSHA safety regulations, obey labor laws, etc.
I can already hear the bleating: "but muh profits!!". Well bro, if you can't turn a profit without using slave labor I guess you must really suck as a businessman. Shitty businesses go under and get replaced by businesses that CAN make a profit while playing by the rules.
It seems like you missed this part: "I asked him why he doesn't hire Americans. He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts. The Mexicans do none of that. They are reliable and work hard."
It also seems like you missed this part: "And wages are constricted because my uncle has to sell on the open market. So his prices and therefore costs have to remain competitive."
The commodities markets are world wide. My uncle has to compete with farmers in other parts of the world where labor is much cheaper. His selling prices are constrained by that. And he is playing by the rules. His Mexicans come here legally. I don't know if he provides health care (though he does pay their room and board while they are here) but he does comply with OSHA and other labor laws. This is all legal, bro! No slave labor involved. The fact is, Americans largely don't want to do these jobs. Why would my uncle go to the trouble of getting these Mexicans if he could just hire locally?
I understand your sentiment, and I used to feel the same way. But the realities of Capitalism simply don't work that way. The world is not a just or fair place, as it is currently managed and configured. That pisses me off too, but fighting reality is a losing battle.
Correct. For all intensive purposes Florida is a blue state from here on out, due to the large number of minorities and hence Democratic voters in the prison population.
As if it's a mystery as to why those minorities don't generally vote for Republicans. And the phrase is "for all intents and purposes".
Taking away people's right to vote and own firearms because of streaming? Wow, talk about overreach. This should get laughed right out of Washington. Problem is, there's enough money behind it that it probably won't.
Taking away people's rights after they have served their time for a felony conviction is the overreach. That's some bullshit, right there.
Seeing as the DNC is calling me a bigot and racist and greedy every time they get in front of a camera, including saying I don't deserve any tax cut, fuck them. Never voting DNC again for the rest of my life.
LOL, like you ever voted for the Democrats....
From McConnell's perpspetive he ain't doing too bad : he got what he wanted. Conservative judges filling all the vacanices across the country, 2 (and maybe more) ultra conservative supreme court justices and
Yep, and these are the reasons I overlooked the obvious flaws and voted for Trump, and will do so again.
THE FUCKING NEW TAX CODE (ie stealing from the poor to appease the rich).
Here, we part company. The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.
Also, the tax code is really stealing from the rich to appease the poor. When you look at how much the rich pay in taxes, it turns out that they pay MORE of the taxes than the poor do, with the top few percent paying over half of all taxes collected. So, when you consider what's *fair* I wonder how you determine what's fair? We already have a heavily progressive tax code.
My personal reading of the situation is that your ideas about taxes are based on a fundamental belief that having rich and poor people is evidence of unfairness. This is wrong headed thinking. This is looking at outcomes and not recognizing differing effort and ability and refusing to understand that being created equal doesn't imply outcomes are the same. Thus your decrying of the tax code, robbing from the poor, to pay the rich, even when the FACTS are that the rich pay far more in taxes than the poor because we have a progressive tax system already.
You are misinformed.
Tax revenue has been growing for decades, regardless of tax policy. But it is growing more slowly since the most recent tax cuts. https://www.thebalance.com/cur.... Supply-side economics has been debunked for years. It does not work. the only reason the idea lives on is that it serves as a propaganda item for the ultra rich.
The rich pay more in taxes because they benefit more from society's infrastructure. I'm sure you agree that people should pay their fair share.
Finally, you talk about outcomes when people don't start out in the same spot. Being born rich is a massive advantage, in many ways. The outcome can easily have nothing to do with effort or ability. You might have a point if everyone were born into the same circumstances. But that is not the case.
I dunno man, importing foreigners for labour seems to be more of a democrat thing. They love to talk about how we can bring in foreigners to "do jobs Americans won't do".
Importing foreign labor is a business thing. Business want to minimize their payroll costs. You, with your high standard of living and resistance to exploitation, are not what they are looking for.
My uncle, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, owns a farm in Pennsylvania which covers about 1000 acres. He has Mexicans come up on temporary work visas to work his farm. I asked him why he doesn't hire Americans. He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts. The Mexicans do none of that. They are reliable and work hard.
Americans really don't want to do these jobs. At least not for the pay. And wages are constricted because my uncle has to sell on the open market. So his prices and therefore costs have to remain competitive. Americans just aren't desperate enough. That's not a bad thing, but it does mean they won't wake up at 4:30 in the morning to do hard work. They'd rather leave that to the Mexicans.
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
Um, what? That government was abolished in 1865. Yes, the US government still exists. But it is not the government it was 150 years ago. How could it be?
>> Corporations should exist to serve the public through the goods and services they can provide, making a profit in the process. If they exist solely to make a profit, or generate value for their shareholders, then they really serve no purpose. This reminds me of Geroge Carlin's "Stuff" skit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... One could just as easily argue that for the majority of cases making "goods and services" serve no purpose either. "Serve the public" means a lot of different things to different people.
George Carlin was a genius. I certainly agree that our society's needs are overfilled in the aggregate.
You sound like a socialist. Companies exist to make good and services someone else is willing to pay for and the bi-product is profit. They are not there for the good of the community.
How is that not exactly what I said? A community is just a group of people who interact with each other. They are being served by corporations. No socialism necessary. I do however think socialism is appropriate in certain circumstances, where the private sector cannot make a profit providing a necessary service, or where centralized control is needed. Fire brigades come to mind.
you are one triggered snowflake. Why can't trumptards be consistent for a split second? hillary can burn in hell for all I care, but to be outraged about her usage of a private e-mail server, and then to immediately downplay ivanka's? you're making my job too easy; i don't have to do any work at all to point out your hypocrisy. it's always feels > reals from your corner though. the trumps don't give a flying fuck about keeping classified info safe. don't forget that trump is using an unsecured phone that is almost certainly being listened to https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1... . fuck off with that kys bullshit, you're a degenerate coward.
Let's not forget that Trump literally gave classified information directly to the Russians.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/trump-intel-slip
Employers are not there to coddle employees or provide mental health services to them. It is not a charity and it is most certainly not a hospital or some type of support system. Employers are there to earn a profit on someone's investment, and that is their sole and only function. If you need a support animal to function or constant ego stroking to feel important, consider that perhaps you belong in academia not the private sector.
Honestly, the idea that corporations exist solely to make a profit is part of what leads to this psychopathy. Corporations should exist to serve the public through the goods and services they can provide, making a profit in the process. If they exist solely to make a profit, or generate value for their shareholders, then they really serve no purpose.
Competition is always good.
Yep, that's why I'm sleeping with your wife! Step up your game, man!
Overt racism? Source please of where 'the right' is overtly racist. Sure, racists exist but there aren't that many of them.
Now, what the left CALLS racism is very different from actual racism.
Point out verifiable facts that are inconvenient to some minority group and you're racist according to the left. Decide you don't want unfettered illegal immigration because it strains our resources, increases crime, and dare to point out that most illegal immigrants have few marketable skills and use welfare at a much higher rate than citizens or legal immigrants (all facts, not opinions) and you're guilty of spreading racist hate speech according to the left.
Basically with the left, criticizing or even pointing out anything somebody non-white does is racist, even when not accompanied by any mention of race or opinion about race. Criticizing something someone DOES or the way someone BEHAVES is not racism--racism is criticizing someone for a characteristic they have no control over.
Learn the difference. Then teach it to Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. because they sure as hell don't know what it is.
Do you really not know that neo-Nazis identify with the political right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17525860/nazis-russell-walker-arthur-jones-republicans-illinois-north-carolina-virginia
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/29/arthur-jones-nazi-illinois-republicans-686875
The MSM is an agent of that left. At least in America, they view themselves as an unofficial 4th branch of government. They're not, and the can fuck off and do their job, unbiased. Not just just in what they report, but also in what they hold back and don't (omit).
The MSM, an agent of the left? The anti-corporate left? The pro-socialism left? The left that wants to reduce the influence of money in politics?
You think the MSM, owned and controlled by large corporations, is an agent of the people who rail against large corporations? Get your head out of your ass. The MSM is an agent of profit and the status-quo. They are risk-averse, and so will shun anything that threatens their revenue streams. That includes the far-left and the far-right. The far-right is just the threat du jour, with all the overt racism and aggression. The right is scaring away the ad revenue. That's why they are being silenced by the MSM; not because of some left-leaning attitudes. on the part of media owners.